Thread: Should Blue States Join Canada?

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Election is not decided by how much of land mass is red or blue, it is decided by majority of votes. Land mass don't vote in the election, people do. That means if Democrats won California then whole of California is blue, not just the coast.

I hope you guys can understand this point.

i understand, what i understand is that you have a ton of land owners, who own more of that state property living in the red areas, i would like to see how your going to move them off of it. believe me they will ignore you, and continue as normal. all that land is represented in congress, and at the moment its mostly red, you will never get consensous.

you cannot secede.

"The 19 blue states generate the bulk of the nation's wealth, that is a fact. Upto 90% of the Bush red states or 27 out of 31 Bush states receive subsidy from federal govt, meaning they get more in return than they contribute."

The agricultural states are subsidized to NOT grow to capacity. Nice try though.

"That should give you a fairly good idea who is subsidising who."

The majority of tax dollars in this country come from the suburbs. The suburbs voted 58%(+/- a few points) GOP, so the majority of the tax dollars come from republicans.

Even more telling, 80% of the tax base is paid by the top 10% of the earning population- the vast majority of whom are republicans.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

That should give you a fairly good idea who is subsidising who.

you cant see the forest throught the trees, alaska get flooded with money not to drill for oil, to keep wildlife preservse, they are paid not to out roduce you. ame with farm country.

new mexico gets money so they can drop bombs on it, test nuclear energy, you plan on doing that in new jersey instead? for every tax dollar that goes into a state its there because evryone voted on it, so states got stuck with the crap stuff like new mexico, besides you got all that money pooring into secret ufo sites.

virgina has the pentagon and many other military and federal buildings.

all this cost money, tax money, you act like the money being taken out is welfare. look at where the money is spent before dredge up subsidizing.

Originally Posted by Ironduke

There are plenty of "red" voters in those "blue counties". I challenge you to show me on blue state that voted 100% Democrat. Coloring counties may be meaningless as far as electoral votes go, but they give us a far more accurate picture of where Democratic and Republican voters reside than maps of the states.

They would only if you colored the counties proportionally with red and blue depending on how the votes turned out. For example if a county voted 60% Republican and 40% Democrat then color 60% of the county as red and 40% as blue, instead of entirey it entirely red.

That will be a more accurate map showing where Democrats and Republican voters reside and you won't be able to say that in California Democrats live only on the coast. The map will show that they live everywhere but are concentrated on the coast.

Originally Posted by donnie

you cant see the forest throught the trees, alaska get flooded with money not to drill for oil, to keep wildlife preservse, they are paid not to out roduce you. ame with farm country.

new mexico gets money so they can drop bombs on it, test nuclear energy, you plan on doing that in new jersey instead? for every tax dollar that goes into a state its there because evryone voted on it, so states got stuck with the crap stuff like new mexico, besides you got all that money pooring into secret ufo sites.

virgina has the pentagon and many other military and federal buildings.

all this cost money, tax money, you act like the money being taken out is welfare. look at where the money is spent before dredge up subsidizing.

Mr. O'Donnell raised the subject of secession on "The McLaughlin Group" during the weekend. "Ninety percent of the red states are welfare-client states of the federal government," said Mr. O'Donnell, who was an aide to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat.
In a telephone interview, Mr. O'Donnell said the red states that went to Mr. Bush "collect more from the federal government than they send in. New York and California, Connecticut — the states that are blue are all the states that are paying for the bulk of everything this government does, from ... Social Security to everything else, and the people in those states don't like what this government is doing."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2753-5113r.htm


PS: You are totally wrong about Alaska. Alaska poulation is only about 500,000 and it produces 25% of the nation's oil output, most of the salmon fisheries, and bulk of timber.
Alaska has so much money that each year it gives free money to the residents!

Originally Posted by donnie

i understand, what i understand is that you have a ton of land owners, who own more of that state property living in the red areas, i would like to see how your going to move them off of it. believe me they will ignore you, and continue as normal. all that land is represented in congress, and at the moment its mostly red, you will never get consensous.

you cannot secede.

A lot of the land which you are calling red actually belongs to state and federal govt and as I have pointed out earlier not a single county in the country is purely 100% red, so what you are calling a red land, some of that land is blue too.

But remember land mass do not vote, people vote.

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

They would only if you colored the counties proportionally with red and blue depending on how the votes turned out. For example if a county voted 60% Republican and 40% Democrat then color 60% of the county as red and 40% as blue, instead of entirey it entirely red.

That will be a more accurate map showing where Democrats and Republican voters reside and you won't be able to say that in California Democrats live only on the coast. The map will show that they live everywhere but are concentrated on the coast.

Strange logic. You said:

Election is not decided by how much of land mass is red or blue, it is decided by majority of votes. Land mass don't vote in the election, people do. That means if Democrats won California then whole of California is blue, not just the coast.

I hope you guys can understand this point.

Moderators, lock this thread.

Two Canadians with absolutlely no knowlege of American Law and History have no rights nor privledge to talk about American secession.

And I am a Canadian who say to these Canadians, you two have absolutely no clue about loyalty.

I am going to remind these two Canadians what it means to be Canadians!

A Pittance of Time - MPEG 6.5 MB

A Pittance of Time - MOV 5.9 MB

We're not Americans and they're not Canadians. We've bled for our country and they've bled for theirs. Those Honours will never be your excuse to destroy our countries.

Your words, Mr. Pyken

To bring up a little past history into this LIGHTHEARTED, JOKING THREAD (Just making sure you all keep this in mind), as recently as 1995, the province of Quebec held a referendum to determine whether it would seperate from the rest of Canada. Had a majority vote been determined in favour of seperation, Quebec would politically be it's own country. This is the second of such referendums. Now I don't pretend to be an expert on American policies on seperation of states, but I imagine it would be possible to seperate if they so chose.

Where in that did you state that Canadians are willing to fight, bled, and die for our unity?

Do not correct me when your ally NeoLiberal quote your name wrong!

Originally Posted by NeoLiberal

Pykin is a Canadian, he knows better. Here is what he wrote in his last post about Quebec secession;